Bush Signs Sweeping Medicare Bill That Includes Drug Benefit

New York Times via yahoo ^ | December 8, 2003 | CHRISTINE HAUSER The New York Times

[snopercod]

President Bush signed legislation today that creates a prescription drug benefit for the elderly, launching the biggest changes to the Medicare system since its creation in 1965.

"For the first time, we're giving seniors peace of mind that they will not have to face unlimited expenses for their medicine," Mr. Bush said just before sitting down at a desk in Constitution Hall, near the White House, and signing the new law, surrounded by applauding supporters and an audience of several hundred people. Presidential bill signings typically are set at the White House, on smaller scale.

The bill, which the government estimates will cost $400 billion over 10 years, would remake Medicare in part by offering drug benefits to 40 million elderly and disabled people while giving insurance companies and private health plans a huge new role in Medicare. The legislation also allows the elderly to set up health accounts in which they can set aside money tax free to pay for future health care.

Mr. Bush hailed the legislation in a televised 20-minute warm-up speech today, offering case studies of elderly people in the audience who he said would be among those to benefit from the Medicare overhaul.

The Republican-controlled Congress gave final approval to the bill on Nov. 25 when the Senate, voting 54 to 44, passed the measure, handing the president a political victory on an issue that has historically worked to the advantage of Democrats.

Eleven Senate Democrats, most of them moderates, joined 42 Republicans and one independent in voting for the legislation; 9 Republicans and 35 Democrats voted against it.

Republicans hope to embrace the legislation as political leverage in the coming election year. Even though a majority of Democrats voted against it, Mr. Bush said that its passage with at least a modicum of Democratic support showed that old partisan differences had been overcome to fulfill a promise to the elderly.

The Medicare overhaul comes at a time when the older segment of the population is growing rapidly, meaning the number of older voters will also be increasing.

"I visited with seniors around the country and heard many of their stories," Mr. Bush said today. "I'm proud that this legislation will give them practical and much-needed help."

But the legislation is not without its critics. Opponents think it risks undermining traditional Medicare, and there have been complaints that the coverage will not be comprehensive.

Medicare beneficiaries will not be allowed to buy insurance to cover their share of prescription drug costs under the new Medicare bill. Health economists have long asserted that when beneficiaries are insulated from the costs, they tend to overuse medical services.

AARP, the largest organization of older Americans, backed the legislation over the objections of some of its members and traditional allies in the debate on the proper role of government and private markets in providing health care to the elderly.

"This bill helps those who need it the most people with low incomes, as well as those with high drug costs," said AARP's chief executive, William D. Novelli, whose endorsement of the bill was crucial to its passage.

The new benefit, covering about 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 a year, would begin in 2006. Next year, Medicare beneficiaries could buy Medicare-approved drug discount cards, which officials say could reduce pharmacy bills by 15 percent or more.

When the bill passed the Senate last month, several Democrats charged that it would enrich insurance and drug companies at the expense of the elderly, who, Democrats said, would would be angry when they learned details of the bill.

"This is lousy legislation," said Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, the Senate minority leader. "We may spend the rest of our careers repairing the flaws of this bill." Mr. Daschle later introduced legislation that would repeal some of the new legislation's more contentious provisions and allow Americans to import cheaper drugs from Canada and Western Europe.

Under the bill, a Medicare beneficiary would be responsible for the first $250 of drug costs, and insurance would then cover 75 percent of costs up to $2,250 a year. Coverage would then stop until the beneficiary had spent $3,600 out of pocket (for a total of $5,100 in prescription drugs). Medicare would pay 95 percent of the cost of each prescription beyond that.

A Medicare recipient could stay in traditional Medicare and get drug coverage by signing up for a stand-alone drug insurance policy. Or the person could join a private plan covering drugs along with doctors' services and hospital care.

Elderly people with low incomes would receive additional assistance enabling them to buy drugs for $1 to $5 a prescription. Premiums and deductibles for their drug coverage would be reduced or eliminated.

Medicare beneficiaries with incomes of more than $80,000 a year would, for the first time, have to pay higher premiums for the part of Medicare that covers doctors' care.

The bill would also increase Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals, speed the marketing of lower-cost generic drugs and offer tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to employers to encourage them to continue providing drug coverage to retirees. The bill also emphasizes preventive health care.

Millions of Medicare beneficiaries have bought private insurance to fill gaps in Medicare. But a provision of the legislation prohibits the sale of any Medigap policy that would help pay drug costs after Jan. 1, 2006, when the new Medicare drug benefit becomes available.

[snopercod]

Well, you may have a point. I searched the White House website for any comments by President Bush regarding arming pilots, and found none. So maybe Bush never said what he was reported to have said.

OTOH, President Bush's executive branch has NOT armed a significant number of pilots, although he signed the law two years ago. Do you have any theory on on why he is not carrying out the law he signed?

[Southack]

"OTOH, President Bush's executive branch has NOT armed a significant number of pilots, although he signed the law two years ago. Do you have any theory on on why he is not carrying out the law he signed?"

I think that's a fair criticism, that more pilots should have been armed by now.

On the other hand, hundreds of pilots have already been armed. President Bush really did REPEAL the first gun control law to EVER be killed at the federal level. It's historic, if mostly symbolism. Still, I'd rather have hundreds of pilots armed than none, so this isn't ALL symbolism.

So I find it difficult to cite this as an example AGAINST Bush. It's not like Bush signed a law banning citizens from packing heat. Something like THAT would be worth carping about!

[FITZ]

Supposedly there's something in this Medicare about choice --- maybe choice in plans? I think the bill is so complex we don't know yet all what it involves. I hope there is a choice not to have to pay at all for anyone's drugs if you don't choose to use them.

[snopercod]

If you work for a living, you have NO choice whether or not to pay the Medicare tax. This bill includes an automatic increase in that tax when costs go up, as they are certain to do. I give it until just after the elections before the first increase on the younger generation.

[My2Cents]

Thanks for the list. The fact he's a man of integrity, honor, and courage is enough for me. The rest is gravy

[KantianBurke]

Former Democratic Rep from IL. Was thrown out of the House? Jailed for writing bad checks?

[snopercod]

Rostenkowski had a bunch of stolen government china and crystal in his basement, did he not?

[GodBlessUSA]

The major point is now is not a good time to take that particular stand. Even if it’s justified, it's not worth it. I live in NY. I know of people who lived through that terrorist act and a few who did not make it. I saw the Twin Towers or I should say lack there of, shortly after the attack. The memory is etched in my mind forever.

We are at war with ruthless killers, who will stop at nothing to destroy us. I don't want my children to suffer because I wanted to make a point from principles that will serve no purpose for the present time. Especially, since it will mean putting a man in office that will jeopardize our security. Put a man in office that will kowtow to other world leaders. We have to work with whom we have in order to succeed to win this war. If we fail at this, we will not have to worry about medicare or anything else for that matter. There will be much worse horrible issues to deal with.

[FirstPrinciple]

Kowtowing to other world leaders? I hope you didn't see the recent visit of the Chinese premier in Washington.

[supercat]

If you can't make your point that this law is bad based upon the real numbers, then just what are you really arguing? And why...

When a camel wants to warm its nose inside the tent, should one focus one's opposition on the nose, or on a desire not to have the whole camel inside the tent?

Can you name for me a single government program that was designed to make a good or service cheaper for certain people by subsidizing it, which has not caused the price of that good or service to skyrocket for everyone else as well as (1) having the price the government pays skyrocket as well, (2) ending up with the goods/services costing so much more that the price even for the supposed beneficiaries of the program pay more than they would had the program never existed, or (3) both?

[GodBlessUSA]

Koffee Annan and the UN.

[GodBlessUSA]

oops.. Spelling I meant Kofi

[GetUsOutOfTheUnitedNations]

The best way to reform our medical system is to get the government out of it. I do not understand how anyone can not see this is the beginning of Hitlary Care. Come on, a 400 billion dollar entitlement that is not wanted by the people it is supposed to help?

Give me a break. Bush is a RINO and is leading us down the road to a complete socialist medical system faster than the Dems right now.

Give medicine free market control with no govt intervention and you will see lower costs and better care. That is the nature of our capitalistic society.

Let's see, none of the "incentives" that apply to me will ever be in place. I guess I have to agree with Kennedy about calling for an appeal of this terrible law.

This is the last staw from our RINO President. I am voting 3rd party this time

[nonliberal]

But you'll never convince the centrist RINO's and wishy-washy moderates.

Or the Bushbots.

[Reagan Man]

In some cases, they're one in the same.

[FirstPrinciple]

Last I checked, we are still in the UN.

[onedoug]

I think I'm sorry you feel that way.

For some odd (red inspired?) reason, the American people have gotten it into their craw since the New Deal that those unable to afford it are yet entitled to the same levels of health care.

This has facilitated fraud on a massive scale. But, no matter. Some safety net - particularly for seniors who were incapable of planning for the future - must yet be maintained.

You tell America they're wrong!

Get your ad campaigns going, right away, by all means.

[GodBlessUSA]

I understand that. A Democrat won't change that either. That was not the original discussion. It was regarding voting. You agreed, a libertarian has no chance to win this election. That's why voting out of principles for a Libertarian would be voting for the Rats. It’s not logical to vote for someone out of principles when they have no chance to win. It makes sense to vote for the best person who will do the best job to protect America. This race is between Republicans and Democrats, like it or not. A Democrat in office, at this time of war with ruthless terrorist murders, would be a horrible scenario and dangerous. Take a look at the Dems. actions now. A democrat would not protect our National Security. It’s not a perfect world, and making a point due to principles will only hurt the success of this war and your point would be moot.

[supercat]

It’s not logical to vote for someone out of principles when they have no chance to win.

If a party recognizes that it's losing voters because it's alienating its base, then it may well decide that it's easier to regain those voters by acknowledging its base than to capture voters for whom the other party is actively competing. Especially considering that the voters representing its base are far more likely to provide active support (e.g. campaign contributions) than the swing voters.

[itsahoot]

Where do people get off claiming that Bush is AGAINST bills that he signs into law?

Well Campaign Finance Reform was one, at least that is what he said.